Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: CO mag bans

  1. #1
    Member BCG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Colorado

    CO mag bans

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer View Post
    NJ mag bans

    Just for info. Here's a decision out of NJ on mag bans. https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/f...federal-judge/

    I would read the court's decision. Some take away points that the gun world has to deal with besides just saying: Shall not be infringed!!

    a. A review of the danger of higher capacity magazines in massacres.
    b. Such bans are just fine with Heller (surprise).
    c. The progun research was not convincing (Kleck's testimony).
    d. Other states are doing.
    e. No compelling reason for such vs. the danger posed by such

    So what do you say in rebuttal to such decisions? The surface validity of danger is compelling to many people. The gun world has many folks in the 5 is enough, Zumbo camps. The need for defense against tyranny seems to have dropped out of the discussion for the most part. Many in the gun world mock it also.
    I haven't read the actual decision about Colorado's 2013 magazine ban so I can't comment on the legal details, just yesterday's news story (below) at https://www.denverpost.com/2018/10/1...eals-lcm-bans/

    Colorado Court of Appeals upholds lower court ruling banning sale of large-capacity magazines for firearms

    Appeals court, in part, leaned on protection of public health and safety to reaffirm ban

    by Kieran Nicholson | The Denver Post
    October 18, 2018 at 6:36 pm

    Prohibiting the sale, transfer or possession of large-capacity magazines for firearms is constitutional, the Colorado Court of Appeals has ruled, reaffirming a lower court’s ruling.

    Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, Colorado’s largest state-based gun lobby, sued the state in 2016 to overturn two 2013 firearm laws. House Bill 13-1224, outlawed LCMs, magazine holding more than 15 rounds. HB 13-1229, expanded mandatory background checks for firearm sales and transfers. Both were passed a year after the Aurora theater shooting, in which an AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle, among other weapons, was used to kill 12 people and injure dozens more.

    On Thursday, the court of appeals, upholding a prior district court ruling, announced that a division of the court concludes that the “statutes are constitutional as a reasonable exercise of the state’s police power for the protection of public health and safety.”

    Furthermore, the court upheld the statutes based, in part, on:

    • They reasonably further a legitimate governmental interest in reducing deaths from mass shootings.
    • They are reasonably related to the legislative purpose of reducing deaths from mass shootings.
    • They do not sweep constitutionally protected activities within their reach.

    Rocky Mountain Gun Owners had challenged in court the “facial” constitutionality of both bills.

    Plantiffs had argued that the LCM ban should be subject to a “heightened standard of review,” according to the appeal court’s summary. They also argued that the statutes were unconstitutionally broad because they ban “an overwhelming majority of magazines.”

    Lawmakers and courts considered the 1999 Columbine High School shootings, in which two assailants shot and killed 13 people and wounded 21 others.

    The court found a greater than fourfold increase in mass shootings nationally with LCMs per year comparing pre-Columbine and post-Columbine.

    “In the thirty-two years between and including 1967 and 1998, there were eleven mass shootings with LCMs — approximately one mass shooting every three years,” according to the court ruling. “Since Columbine, in the eighteen years between and including 1999 and 2016, there have been twenty-seven mass shootings with LCMs — 1.5 per year.”

    The court found that: “Smaller magazines create more pauses in firing, which allow potential victims to take life-saving measures. We conclude that the statutes are reasonably related to legitimate governmental purpose of reducing deaths from mass shootings.”

    The appeals court concluded that the statutes “burden only a person’s opportunity to use an LCM, not a person’s right to bear arms in self-defense.”
    Last edited by BCG; 10-19-2018 at 05:09 PM.
    Yippee ki-yay

  2. #2
    Member Peally's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    If it makes them feel better my next backpacking trip will likely be to Wyoming. Colorado isn't even on the list of potential options.
    Semper Gumby, Always Flexible

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Peally View Post
    If it makes them feel better my next backpacking trip will likely be to Wyoming. Colorado isn't even on the list of potential options.
    Vacationed in CO, and wanted to retire there. Then this. No thanks, took me 35 years to GTFO of NJ.

  4. #4
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    In the desert, looking for water.
    My wife keeps talking about moving to CO. Even has a city picked out.

    I'm not doing it.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The land of flatbeds and no teeth.
    Retiring in Colorado is out. Looking at going back to AZ or West TX or WY. Colorado ruined a lot of outdoor stuff for a lot of people. Unfortunately, it will never matter, they made up the revenue with the dope heads.
    Last edited by Arbninftry; 10-19-2018 at 08:28 PM.

  6. #6
    Member Greg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Utah
    I suspect that unless you're in the Denver / Boulder area that you'd have to be pretty unlucky to find a Sheriff that cared to enforce that dopey ban.

    That may change in time.
    Don’t blame me. I didn’t vote for that dumb bastard.

  7. #7
    Site Supporter Bigghoss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Anna Kendrick's fantasies
    I moved to Colorado in April of 2012. So I was pretty pissed.
    Quote Originally Posted by MattyD380 View Post
    Because buying cool, interesting guns I don't need isn't a decision... it's a lifestyle...

  8. #8
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Erie County, NY
    Don't worry, Kavanaugh will break out six packs at Scotus and convince the other 'conservative' justices to take a case that voids all the various state bans! Yes, indeed, that will happen.

    Anyway, as I was quoted - the gun world has not come up with a convincing rhetorical defense for the higher cap mags, etc. Self - defense doesn't work. Look at our current thread with vehement defense of the mighty 22 LR J frame and the usual blather that if you want more you are an extremist nut. Despite the Scalia apologists for his prose in Heller and then in his, Thomas and Kavanaugh's pragmatically useless dissents the courts are fine for the most part with the bans.

    The defense against tyranny was abandoned as it didn't sell in polling according to NRA sources here.

    Don't expect legislative solutions from Congress. They couldn't wait to abandon progun legislation after a rampage. Rafael Cruz is probably more worried about his wife being the major breadwinner and redecorating his house than leading a charge for gun rights. Cornyn - reciprocity - hear the crickets. Anyway, if the Orange Overlord's big mouth loses the House, that's the end of legislation in any forseeable time line.

    There is a crazy initiative in WA state. Expect such to spread across the country - perhaps slowly. The NRA sent me an email that folks oppose and AWB. So what - the majority was against the Orange Overlord also. Oh, maybe editorials against the Socialists will turn the tide. Can't argue we need EBRs because of the Socialist college professors as that would be the defense against tyranny argument.

    Rant over.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •